Orlando 50

[kscarbel2]

5 hours ago, tjc transport said:

unfortunatly i can not find it now, but i saw a graph yesterday with shooting deaths per president.

reagan was around 9

bush senior was around 11

clinton was 23

bush junior was around 13

obumper is over 300

and i still say all these shootings are committed by plants by the democratic party to advance their plan for total disarmament of the law abiding American people.

"Shooting" death or other, murder is murder..........and I've a zero tolerance for one human being snuffing out the life of another.

According to the FBI UCS Annual Crime Reports, the number of murders in the United States has actually dropped every year but one since Obama took office.

(I didn’t vote for Obama. I'm just contributing some facts)

As you can see, the murder rate rose progressively from 1960 to the 1991-1993 period, after which the annual numbers, despite a still growing population, began to fall.

The threat of terrorism, and ongoing crime related to Latin-American drug cartels operating on American soil are serious issues.

But all that said, the sad reality is that most of the 14,249 murdered Americans in 2014 were killed by...........Americans,

Detroit and Baltimore are virtual war zones. With Ferguson, a bully/criminal was made a martyr rather than identified for what he was.

Murders in the United States of America

1960 9,110

1961 8,740

1962 8,530

1963 8,640

1964 9,360

1965 9,960

1966 11,040

1967 12,240

1968 13,800

1969 14,760

1970 16,000

1971 17,780

1972 18,670

1973 19,640

1974 20,710

1975 20,510

1976 18,780

1977 19,120

1978 19,560

1979 21,460

1980 23,040

1981 22,520

1982 21,010

1983 19,310

1984 18,690

1985 18,980

1986 20,613

1987 20,096

1988 20,680

1989 21,500

1990 23,440

1991 24,700

1992 23,760

1993 24,530

1994 23,330

1995 21,610

1996 19,650

1997 18,208

1998 16,914

1999 15,522

2000 15,586

2001 16,037

2002 16,229

2003 16,528

2004 16,148

2005 16,740

2006 17,030

2007 16,929

2008 16,442

2009 15,399

2010 14,772

2011 14,661

2012 14,866

2013 14,319

2014 14,249

[kscarbel2]

Associated Press  /  June 15, 2016

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee says he wants to explore the potential for a system that would trigger an alert when someone who was previously on a terrorism watch list wants to buy a gun.

Rep. Adam Schiff of California says an alert would allow law enforcement officials to consider anew whether an investigation ought to be reopened to determine whether the person who had expressed "radical thoughts is at the point of taking those into action."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's to "explore"? What's to debate? Make the change, effective immediately. An alert should have been standard protocol for decades, if not since 911.

[41chevy]

15 hours ago, kscarbel2 said:

Associated Press  /  June 15, 2016

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee says he wants to explore the potential for a system that would trigger an alert when someone who was previously on a terrorism watch list wants to buy a gun.

Rep. Adam Schiff of California says an alert would allow law enforcement officials to consider anew whether an investigation ought to be reopened to determine whether the person who had expressed "radical thoughts is at the point of taking those into action."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's to "explore"? What's to debate? Make the change, effective immediately. An alert should have been standard protocol for decades, if not since 911.

Hope it includes the Federal agents / employees who are on the watch / no fly lists also.

[grayhair]

he is ISIS advocate in chief.

In the mean time, please arm yourself.  I live too far away to help you out if you get in a jam...

 

[41chevy]

On 6/14/2016 at 7:52 AM, Brocky said:

And I had trouble getting my TWIX card because of a fight with my wifes EX about 20 years prior in rural Georgia.

You need a special card to buy TWIX ??

 

 

[41chevy]

Needed: A Declaration of War

 Calvin Thomas

   API. OPED  Jun 14, 2016

 

 

 

Credit President Obama for finally using the words he has desperately tried to avoid during his presidency. He correctly called the mass shooting in an Orlando gay nightclub Sunday morning, which killed 49 and injured 53, "an act of terror." It was, writes The New York Times, the "deadliest attack on a gay target in the nation's history."

Discredit to the president for avoiding linking the attack to ISIS and Islamic terrorism, even though the shooter, Omar Mateen, reportedly called 911 during the rampage and "pledged loyalty to the Islamic State." Jihadists everywhere quickly celebrated the carnage on the internet and, reports israelnationalnews.com, "...the al-Amaq agency -- which functions as ISIS's propaganda and media wing -- claimed that 'the attack ... was carried out by an Islamic State fighter.'"

The president used the tragedy to make another pitch for stronger gun laws. Does he believe that someone who claims to be on a mission from Allah would not be able to obtain guns and explosives illegally?

Mateen had been on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's radar in 2013 and 2014, but reports The Daily Beast, the FBI "subsequently closed the case when it produced nothing that appeared to warrant further investigation." NBC News learned that Mateen traveled twice to Saudi Arabia in 2011 and 2012 "to perform a pilgrimage to Mecca," according to a spokesman for Saudi Arabia's Ministry of the Interior. Once again, we are reactive rather than proactive.

The pattern following these terrorist attacks is now familiar. First comes extreme caution in which we say very little and refuse even to speculate about what seems obvious, followed, after the fact, as in the Fort Hood shooting, which was dubbed "workplace violence," by an attempt to quickly change the subject. Next comes the obligatory news conference in which a quickly produced imam or "expert," speaking for the Muslim community, is trotted out to say that the latest incident has nothing to do with Islam, which is a peaceful religion, and that we should all embrace unity.

Omar Mateen's father, Seddique Mateen, initially claimed there was no religious motivation behind the killings, but The Washington Post reported the father "is an Afghan man who holds strong political views, including support for the Afghan Taliban."

Muhammad Musri joined law enforcement officers at the news conference in Orlando. He is connected to the Islamic Society of Central Florida, which is connected to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an Islamic umbrella organization that some believe has ties to terrorist groups.

Muhammad Musri's mosque was even used for a fundraiser that collected $55,000 for Hamas. There is also a 2011 video of Musri in which he blames the United States for Sept. 11.

People like Omar Mateen are not so much "lone wolves" as "known wolves." But before law enforcement can legally act, it's often too late.

In wartime, certain liberties have been suspended in order to protect the country. This may be one of those times. Or should we wait until our enemies obtain a weapon of mass destruction?

Congress should declare war on all terrorist groups. Websites that promote ideologies that encourage terrorist acts should be shut down. No more mosques should be built in the U.S. until we gain an upper hand against radical Islamists. It does no good to say most Muslims are peaceful if you have no mechanism in place to act against or even identify those who are not.

On "American Idol," Randy Jackson would often say of a contestant that he or she was "in it to win it."

We don't appear to be in it, but our enemies are.

[kscarbel2]

On 6/15/2016 at 0:39 PM, kscarbel2 said:

Associated Press  /  June 15, 2016

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee says he wants to explore the potential for a system that would trigger an alert when someone who was previously on a terrorism watch list wants to buy a gun.

Rep. Adam Schiff of California says an alert would allow law enforcement officials to consider anew whether an investigation ought to be reopened to determine whether the person who had expressed "radical thoughts is at the point of taking those into action."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's to "explore"? What's to debate? Make the change, effective immediately. An alert should have been standard protocol for decades, if not since 911.

June 16, 2016

A congressman had to lead a 14 hour filibuster to 2:11am in the morning to get his colleagues to agree to hold a vote on an amendment to expand background checks and ban gun sales to suspected terrorists.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/16/enough-senate-filibuster-ends-as-democrat-claims-gun-control-victory

[Brocky]

On 6/15/2016 at 8:49 PM, 41chevy said:

You need a special card to buy TWIX ??

 

 

Paul

Transportation Workers Identification card.. Needed by all truck drivers to get into a port to get a container..

Another knee jerk action the result of 9/11 to screw with the common working man and steal his $132..

[41chevy]

1 minute ago, Brocky said:

Paul

Transportation Workers Identification card.. Needed by all truck drivers to get into a port to get a container..

Another knee jerk action the result of 9/11 to screw with the common working man and steal his $132..

I know, I had to get one to go to Port Newark, was asked if I had a TWIX and handed the gate guard a candy bar. . .He didn't think it was funny either

[tjc transport]

i got asked for a twit card once, and told the guy i don't need one. then showed him my federal id which gave me access to everywhere without escort.

even in the fuel tank farm of the international airports.

the $8 per hour security monkey was not happy that they had to let me go on my way without one of them escorting me.

 

especially after the episode i had with one of the "escorts" that tried taking me under the wing of a 747.

i stopped 3 inches away from the engine, and refused to move the truck.

port authority police were ready to arrest me when i pointed to the engine and the idiot escort directly in front of me. after that one they left me to go how i wanted as long as i was not crossing active runways.

[other dog]

On 6/14/2016 at 9:35 AM, david wild said:

 Think I saw Other Dog in SC, smoke by me so fast, had to stop and pick up my mirrors.

You should have asked if it was him on the cb. If it was, he stopped at exit 48 to get something to eat.

[RowdyRebel]

On 6/14/2016 at 6:18 AM, HeavyGunner said:

It's funny how no one has directly addressed the question, why was a person suspected of and investigated for terrorism by the FBI ever allowed to pass a background check to own a firearm???  

Just because you're on a government "list" doesn't mean your 2nd Amendment Rights ought to be infringed upon. The thing about those "lists" is that you may not know how or why you got put on it. Could be that your name is just too similar to somebody else's who may or may not pose a real threat. Could be you cut somebody off in traffic and they made an "anonymous" report of suspicious activity sparking your inclusion on said "lists" while being investigated. Once ON the "list", you may not have the ability to find out how or why you are on the "list" because it's "classified", making it damn near impossible to remove yourself from said "list".

If you have committed a crime, been arrested and charged with that crime, tried and found guilty of that crime in a court of law, THEN you have proven yourself incapable of being entrusted with the rights and privileges enjoyed by the LAW ABIDING. Until such time, you are supposed to be considered "innocent until PROVEN guilty". They don't have to PROVE you are guilty of ANYTHING to put your name on one of their "lists"...and that is the problem I have with using those "lists" to deny people their God given and Constitutionally protected rights.

As far as this shooting is concerned, it is yet another shoot-em-up that happened in a "gun-free zone". If it weren't for the prohibition on carrying in establishments that derive a majority of their revenue from the sale of liquor, perhaps some there would have been in a position to STOP the attacker, instead of cowaring in fear awaiting their turn to die. Yes, I agree it may not be wise to have drunks carrying guns...but they encourage people to "designate a driver", who will stay sober and make sure everyone gets home safely. I see no reason why such a person should be prohibited from packing heat as they are NOT drinking.

Gun free zones don't work. It doesn't matter if that gun free zone is a property (school, movie theater, night club), a city (Chicago, DC), or a country (France). Criminals and terrorists alike recognize these gun-free zones for what they are: SOFT TARGETS! They know, when they go in and open fire, nobody will have the means to stop them for however long it takes for the police to arrive, set up a perimeter, and figure out how to get inside. Most of these attacks end at this point, when the killer takes the coward's way out ending things on his own terms.

Want to prevent these mass killings? Eliminate the "gun-free zone". Allow the law-abiding easy access to the tools they need to protect themselves, and eliminate any restrictions on where they may or may not carry those tools. The Constitution ought to be the only "permit" we need. What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" don't they understand?

[RowdyRebel]

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/06/16/pastor-who-praised-killings-in-orlando-doubles-down-on-controversial-remarks

 

Damn...if I'd been sitting in that pew, I would've walked out. It isn't a very "Christian" view to have, considering Jesus spent his time with sinners. Whatever happened to "judge not lest ye be judged..." (Matthew 7:1) and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7)? We are taught that there are no commandments greater than to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:30-31). Rather than executing those who WE deem "sinners", we ought to show God's love for them and encourage them to repent and be saved. It is NOT our place to judge...that job is reserved for the Almighty. This Baptist preacher needs to rethink what it is he is saying, because it does NOT follow Christ's teachings and more closely resembles what one might hear in a mosque. 

[HeavyGunner]

I will respectfully disagree with someone on a terrorist watch list and being investigated with terrorist ties being able to pass a background check and being able to legally be armed. In my opinion, at the very least, he should've temporarily not been able to pass a background check. Do you think they would've passed a back ground check for a hazmat endorsement while being on a terrorist watch list?  I don't. I think no one wanted to be called a bigot or a racist because of "profiling " a muslim on a terrorist watch list so it was better for their careers to give him a gun. I'm 110% pro gun but common sense has to prevail. 

[RowdyRebel]

Thing is, though, he was investigated by the FBI and deemed unworthy of having any charges brought against him. Why should he lose his rights when he hasn't committed any crimes and the FBI cannot find any reason to charge him with anything? So he runs his mouth and says some pretty ignorant things. Guess what, that (especially political speech) is protected under the 1st Amendment. As repugnant as it is that he celebrated the attacks against this country, IT WAS HIS RIGHT to do so. We cannot restrict some rights just because he exercised other rights. As long as he is not making threats, he has committed no crime. The 5th Amendment guarantees that "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law". The states are likewise prohibited from doing as much by the 14th Amendment. You cannot be stripped of your rights without due process, and there is no due process where these "lists" are concerned. To allow the government to start infringing upon some rights without due process opens the door to the government infringing upon ANY right without due process. Where would you draw the line? Guns? Speech? The press? Peaceable assembly? Unnecessary search & seizure? Perhaps quartering of soldiers in your home? Where is that line to be drawn?

 

As far as I'm concerned, our Founders were clear. To yield any one right starts down a slippery slope...and I am unwilling to venture down that path.

[HeavyGunner]

Yep just like the Boston bombers. We knew they went and trained with terrorists and still let them roam around free. Guess if you want the us like isreal (fighting everyday) keep letting terrorists run the USA by giving them passes all the time. Again common sense tell me if you are on a terrorist watch list, have been investigated twice and we're still being watched obviously there was something up and he shouldn't be able to hurt gun rights because someone wouldn't keep a person of interest on a terrorist list from getting a gun which makes background checks a joke. 

[RowdyRebel]

Sure, we could be like the old Soviet Union, stripping folks of their rights any time they say something anti-government. Heck, North Korea simply executes folks for less. Who needs due process? He was investigated and insufficient evidence was found to file charges...so let's just shoot him! After all, he MUST be bad news, because the FBI investigated him...twice!

We have rights, which quite simply cannot be stripped away without due process. If a person had the ability to know WHY he was placed on the list, allowed to confront witnesses against him, and present his case as to why he should NOT be on the list...and then a judge or jury of his peers decided he needed to be included on the list...then his right to due process would have been fulfilled. Without that due process, inclusion on the list is arbitrary and should not void ANY rights a person may otherwise have. Perhaps some day you are deemed to be an environmental terrorist hell bent on destroying the environment because you like to drive an old diesel truck that pre-dates emmissions regulations. That is brought to the attention of some left-wing do-gooder working in the government and as such, your name is put on the watch list. Nobody tells you until you're trying to purchase a new rifle in preparation for deer season. You're denied, and nobody will tell you WHY you are prohibited from buying that rifle. You spend thousands of dollars in legal bills just to find out you're on the terrorist watch list, which seems ludicrous to you being the patriotic American that you are. You cannot find out why you are on the list, because it is "classified". As such, you have no way to prove the allegations to be false in order to have yourself removed from said list.

Without due process, we must fight to keep ALL rights intact.

It isn't that much different than the left being open to free speech...so long as you agree with them. Disagree, and you ought to be shouted down and prohibited from speaking. No. You have the right to speak, and if you're an ignorant tool with the KKK spouting off your racist views at a rally in the park, you ought to be allowed to speak and be recognized as the racist idiot that you are. Just because I disagree doesn't mean you shouldn't get to speak your mind, because if I don't allow you to speak, what ground do I have to stand on when I have something to say and somebody else disagrees?

We are either a free people with a government bound by the constraints written in plain English in the Constitution, or we are subject to the whims of whoever happens to control the government at any given time. I choose to be free, and to do that, I recognize the rights of others to be just as free. Sure, it sucks that 49 people were killed. But, I blame TOO MUCH government rather than an insufficient control by the government. If 1 in 10 Floridians have a CWP, and there were 300 people in the club that night, that means 30 people SHOULD have had the ability to fight back. If the club hadn't been designated a "gun-free zone" based upon the percentage of revenue derived from the sale of alcohol, rather than a 3 hour ordeal with 49 dead and many more wounded, there might have been 2 or 3 dead including the gunman...and it would have been over in a matter of seconds. Screw this gun free crap. When victims can and will shoot back, these sorts of incidents just don't happen.

[HeavyGunner]

Your jumping leaps and bounds with what ifs and might haves. Plain and simple a terrorist on a watch list shouldn't be able to pass a background check. 

[RowdyRebel]

47 minutes ago, HeavyGunner said:

Your jumping leaps and bounds with what ifs and might haves. Plain and simple a terrorist on a watch list shouldn't be able to pass a background check. 

 

Here's an article I just found that explains my point a little better:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/06/20/dirty-secret-about-four-senate-gun-control-bills.html

 

Quote

Everyone wants to do something to stop these attacks, but the one thing that we know does matter -- ending gun-free zones – are being completely ignored in the legislation.  Since at least as far back as 1950,

all but three U.S. mass public shootings (with three or more fatalities) have occurred in places where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms.  Time after time these killers explicitly pick targets where victims can’t defend themselves.

Quote

Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) bill would ban people on the No Fly list from buying guns.  But neither Omar Mateen, the Orlando nightclub shooter, nor any of the other Islamic terrorists from Fort Hood to San Bernardino were on the terror watch or No Fly lists.

Quote

Though being on the FBI’s terror watch or No Fly lists sure sounds bad, it doesn’t mean that the person has been convicted of anything.  You can be on the list simply because the

FBI wants to interview you about someone you might know.  About 40 percent of people on the watch list are under “reasonable suspicion” even though they have absolutely “no affiliation with known terrorist groups.”

Quote

Should the government be able to deny you the right to protect yourself simply because it wants to ask about someone you might know?  Should it be able to do that without having to seek a court decision?

Quote

While some people on the No Fly List are there because they are suspected of terrorist activity, others get added because they are suspects in criminal cases, made controversial statements or tweets unrelated to terrorism, are victims of clerical error, or refused to be an informant.

But not only do the terror watch list and No Fly List target many people who aren’t really threats, they stop a lot of people who weren't meant to be targeted.  The late Sen. Ted Kennedy was stopped from flying five times because someone with a similar name was on the No Fly List.  Other prominent individuals such as the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes have also run into this problem.[/quote]

 

Quote

Even if we are putting real terrorists on a list and legally prohibiting them from purchasing guns doesn’t really stop them from getting weapons.  Just because illegal drugs are illegal doesn’t mean that people can’t get them.  It’s the same with guns.  And, incidentally, drug gangs supply both drugs and guns.

France’s strict weapon bans didn’t stop terrorists in any of the four terrorist attacks from getting all the AK-47s and explosive belts that they needed for their devastating attacks on Paris.

Edited June 20, 2016 by RowdyRebel

[kscarbel2]

7 hours ago, HeavyGunner said:

I will respectfully disagree with someone on a terrorist watch list and being investigated with terrorist ties being able to pass a background check and being able to legally be armed. In my opinion, at the very least, he should've temporarily not been able to pass a background check. Do you think they would've passed a back ground check for a hazmat endorsement while being on a terrorist watch list?  I don't. I think no one wanted to be called a bigot or a racist because of "profiling " a muslim on a terrorist watch list so it was better for their careers to give him a gun. I'm 110% pro gun but common sense has to prevail. 

Voted "Best Post of the Day"

[kscarbel2]

A little over ten minutes after his call with 911, Mateen received his first of many crisis negotiation calls. In those he told the negotiator that America had to stop bombing Syria and Iraq while referring to himself as an Islamic solider. 

Mateen said that the United States attacks on those two countries was why he was 'out here right now.' 

Mateen also told the negotiator he had a car outside that contained a bomb, and threatened to detonate it during their calls.

'There is some vehicle outside that has some bombs, just to let you know,' said Mateen.

'You people are gonna get it, and I’m gonna ignite it if they try to do anything stupid.'

He also claimed to have vests like the ones 'used in France,' a reference to last year's terror attacks in Paris.

'In the next few days, you’re going to see more of this type of action going on,' he said, referencing his own attack. 

.

[willeo6709]

Maybe instead of new gun laws they need to re- introduce the law that makes it against the law to kill other people, whether they need it or not...... should have the same effect on the muslims,,, they don't seem to follow our laws, customs or anything else.  If where they are from is such a utopia they should move back.... not try to change our society to theirs.

[RowdyRebel]

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”  --Ben Franklin

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who comes near that precious jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined.” --Patrick Henry

“Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves”  --Abraham Lincoln

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.”  --Thomas Paine

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”  --Thomas Jefferson

“The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.”  --Winston Churchill

Them thar was some smart fellers.

Show me a reasonable proposed gun law that would have stopped the Orlando massacre and then I'll believe "common sense" gun control legislation might actually exist.  For all of the talk, I have yet to see ANY evidence of it being more than just a fairy tale.  Fact of the matter is, for all of the talk about "no fly/no buy" and denying those on the watch list a firearm, the guy wasn't on any of those lists.  Sure, he had been investigated on more than one occasion for one reason or another...but the FBI cleared him.  Hell, he worked as an armed security guard, and had passed the company's background checks.  Nothing anyone on the left has proposed would have done a damn thing other than place MORE restrictions on the freedom and liberty enjoyed by the law abiding in our society.  Someone with criminal intent will find a way to get what they want.  Illegal drugs are still bought and sold quite frequently to anyone who wants to buy them.  Do you really thing it'll be any different with guns?  Look at the cities and states with the most strict gun laws.  They also have some of the highest violent crime rates.  Why?  Because the criminals will always get what they want because they don't care that what they want is illegal.  They are already planning to rob (illegal), rape (illegal), murder (illegal), steal (illegal), threaten (illegal), extort (illegal), and do whatever else they so desire.  Do you really think prohibiting them from legally buying a gun is going to change anything?  They'll just go out and buy one ILLEGALLY out of the back of a van in a dark alley....or they'll steal one.  The laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS don't affect criminals because criminals don't obey the laws...so what makes you think MORE laws will have any effect?

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." --Albert Einstein

Instead of passing more useless laws, infringing upon the liberties of the law abiding, we should make it easier for the law abiding to have the means necessary to take action to protect themselves and those around them when faced with an evil person with criminal intent.  Get rid of the "gun-free zone".  Allow law-abiding citizens to buy whatever they want, carry it wherever they want, and use it whenever they need it in order to preserve the rights to life, liberty, and property of those around them. 

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

[david wild]

The liberal left does not want you to be able to protect yourself, they want you to rely on the police (Government) but they always show up too late, kinda like some fire depts. that show up to cool off the cellar hole, Most cops don't want to be shot at, and they are not there when things are going bad, but a armed person on site would and could stop some of this crap.  Obama said you don't what it is like to cross a street and hear all the car doors lock, well that is a learned response from all the black thugs that car jacked people, same with Muslim, when all you see is another middle eastern looking person involved in terrorism  then you assume that is who you need to watch more closely. Both true in my book.

[41chevy]

I watched the dog and pony show put on be Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and Chris Murphy.

Feinstein stated that a national poll shows 90% of the U.S. wants stiffer gun laws, 87% want guns removed from public access (?) Feinstein wants the "Loop holes" closed that allow mentally ill people to by "machine guns" and buying assault rifles on the internet.

Murphy said because of the no fly list, terrorists went from using airliners to assault rifles (?)

Schumer mentioned his staff went to gun shows on Long Island and Up State NY and bought AR-15s, AK-47's and Uzi's with no I.D.

What F'n planet do these people who supposedly "serve us" live on?

Now with N.Y.S. Safe Act, which on is classed as an Assault Rifle?